Standing Committee B

[Mr. Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]

Nicholas Winterton: I bid the Committee a good morning. I have read the Hansard of our previous sitting—with considerable interest, I must say. I am sure that it heralds excellent progress at our sittings today. Clause 10 Licence conditions

Clause 10 - Licence conditions

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 8, line 33, at end insert—
`and may consider any complaints made to the Authority by members of the public against the licensee.'.
 I wish you, Mr. Winterton, and all colleagues here assembled a happy Mayday. It used to be an innocent day of pleasure, I understand, but politicians have clearly taken over too much.

Charles Clarke: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's practices on previous Committees on which we have served, will he tell us of the innocent pleasures on which he has spent his time on Mayday during the past 20 years or so?

Nicholas Winterton: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I welcome the most charming Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department? I am sure that she will add considerably to our debate today.

Simon Hughes: I join in your welcome to the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Winterton—a Mayday bonus. The only thing I remember as being specifically a Mayday event was the rather establishment event at a university—of which I was not a member—of getting up early in the morning to walk to a bridge and listen to a choir singing on the top of a tower, which I gather still happens in some city up the A40 on Mayday mornings.
 The amendment is simple. It concerns the licensing provisions of the Bill and would write a complaints procedure into subsection (2), formally registering that it should be a duty on the licensing authority to consider any complaints made to it by members of the public. At the equivalent stage in the House of Lords, my noble Friend Lord Thomas of Gresford raised the issue of the lack of a complaints procedure for the public against licensed or approved persons or companies. Similar amendments were moved on Third Reading.

John Bercow: I am slightly uncertain about the scope of the amendment. Under its terms, would the licensee be entitled to know the identity of the complainant?

Simon Hughes: That is a proper question, but the amendment does not itself answer it. A proper complaints procedure should allow a complaint to be made, for the person who made it to be known to the person complained against—the licensee—and for the licensee to be able to rebut that claim before any decision is taken. I should certainly be unhappy with a procedure that did not allow disclosure of the information. I can envisage circumstances in which the authority might rule that it would be better that an individual was not known by name, but the nature of the evidence should certainly be known.
 The clause deals with the modification or revocation of licences and licence conditions, and the criteria for making decisions about them. The amendment would add a complaints procedure as well. The Committee should consider briefly whether we want to include it in the Bill or whether we should be satisfied with assurances in the record of the debate. That was the response given by the Minister in the House of Lords, and it was perfectly reasonable in that context. 
 I understand that the Government's view is that there must be an established and effective complaints procedure. We believe that it would be better to include it in the Bill but not to include the detail about it. What goes in a Bill and what does not is one of those issues that we debate often. The Bill is not huge, and the clause is certainly not overly long. I ask the Minister and his Department to consider again whether the Bill should provide for a complaints procedure as well as for the licensing authority and the criteria for granting and modifying licences. People who read the Bill would easily understand, without having to look elsewhere, that there is a procedure for complaints. The provision could be added and the detail introduced later. I hope that I have been clear and relatively brief.

Nick Hawkins: I join in welcoming you back to the Chair for our proceedings this morning, Mr. Winterton, and welcome all members of the Committee.
 If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) presses his very sensible amendment to a vote, my hon. Friends and I will support him, because we think that it would be useful to include the provision in the Bill. It is not necessary for me to take up any more of the Committee's time.

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, there is no serious point of substance between us on the issue. The Government agree that the effective discharge of the authority's duties to licence only fit and proper persons will inevitably mean that it will need to establish an effective complaints procedure. The authority will need to be able to listen to and, if necessary, investigate complaints that are made against anyone seeking a new licence or a licence renewal. It follows that the authority must also have that facility when considering whether to modify or revoke a licence. Indeed, complaints made by members of the public are likely to be a prime motivating factor for such revocation or modification procedures.
 We have discussed on several occasions the authority's general duties to keep under review the industry, the operation of the licensing system and the legislation. It will need to keep its ear close to the ground to know exactly what is happening, and complaints will be an important contribution to the authority's discharge of those responsibilities. 
 For all the reasons that have been given by me and by the hon. Gentleman, the Government will build a complaints procedure into our planning for the establishment of the authority. However, for reasons that he himself has argued on numerous occasions, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend the legislation. It is better to have less legislation rather than more, and it is not necessary to add the power to the Bill. As he said, our debate parallels the debate in the other place, but I hope that the assurances that I have given will allow him to withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for the Minister's general acceptance of my points.
 I am conscious that there are not serried ranks of Opposition Members here, although they are being significantly and qualitatively supplemented as I speak. I was none the less minded, because this is important and I am trying to be selective about when votes are forced, to ask the Committee to divide on this matter. I am now fully persuaded by the arrival of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), because I hope that he will support the amendment. As the Minister knows, I believe that where matters are alterable on a regular basis, they should not be on the face of the Bill. That is common sense. Here the statement that there ought to be a power to consider complaints would not need to be altered. That is a statement that would stand. It is only the procedure that would be subject to variation. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 8, line 36, at end insert—
 `(4) The Authority may refuse to renew, revoke or suspend a licence if it has reasonable grounds for being satisfied that the licensee—
(a) has supplied information in or in connection with the application for the licence or its renewal that was knowingly false or misleading;
(b) has contravened any provision of this Act or regulations thereunder; or
(c) is no longer a fit and proper person to provide a security service.'.
 Again, I concede, this a matter that has been aired before. It is in the nature of a two-Chamber Parliament that matters aired in one place sometimes gain credibility and persuasiveness as they move to another. That also gives the Government the chance to think again. A disciplined system as outlined in the amendment is needed to ensure that those who supply wrong information and are caught later can be dealt with and have their licence revoked. I am sure that many people will test the system and try to get through it and then be found not to be who they claim to be or not to have disclosed previous convictions. 
 Things also come to light that call into question someone's fitness or propriety to do a job. We need a clear procedure and I should like to give a practical example from a parallel walk of life that may ring some bells with hon. Members. Coincidentally, a court hearing only last week at Tower Bridge magistrates court in my constituency concerned a market stall licence holder's appeal against the local authority's withdrawal of his licence. The authority meets in committee to deal with market traders' licences and it came to the view that he was not a fit and proper person to hold one. 
 The man came to my surgery as a local business person, and I agreed to look into the case. I saw the committee papers, and it was not a party political matter: members of both my party and the Labour party sat on the committee. In the end, I took the view that his case had sufficient merit to be supported. Previous allegations against him had resulted in court proceedings, but they were dismissed and he was found not guilty of the charges. The controversial aspect was whether those matters could be prayed in aid in the argument about whether he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. A further issue was whether the conduct of his father, the previous trader, could be regarded as relevant. 
 My view was that those matters had been dealt with and settled. The trader was in danger of losing his livelihood as a result of matters that had arisen since the disposal of the allegations. Before the court proceedings, however, the committee had seen the chronology of his time as a market trader and all those matters listed in gory detail. My view is that the committee would have taken them into account. Its view would have been coloured, and its decision may well have been influenced. In any event, the local authority decided to withdraw the licence, but the magistrates court upheld the appeal. 
 The question is what makes a fit and proper person, and the answer is relatively subjective. Breaches of regulations here and there, which may not of themselves be serious, may be added to a view taken by the authority's officers. In this case, the comparable authority is the local council. 
 I tabled the amendment because a procedure is needed to regulate renewal, failure or refusal to renew, revocation or suspension. People need to know that procedure and the ground rules, and it is better to have something setting out the fact that such a procedure exists. The other reason is that there must be a procedure whereby anyone who thinks that there is cause for a licence to be revoked or suspended knows how to feed in that information. He or she may want to do that privately at the beginning by saying, ``Look, I'm very unhappy about this. I've no idea whether you've had other complaints, but if this conduct is not a one-off, I don't want this person to have a licence.'' For example, there may be allegations of racist or sexist behaviour, and minor incidents might be cumulatively important. 
 If Ministers give assurances only to the Committee, which is a perfectly proper way of responding to the amendment, what assurance can we have that the Security Industry Authority will, by its procedures and regulations, implement the will of Parliament and the expressed concern of both Houses? What is the procedure for hon. Members to see the secondary legislation, which may not be regulations, but in a lesser form, such as guidance or rules, when the SIA is set up and starts to get its act together.

John Bercow: Of course, no one should be the hapless victim of Chinese whispers, tittle-tattle or the vagaries of the rumour mill, but it is not entirely clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks whether the committee meeting to which he referred in support of his argument took place in public or merely in private. Does he agree that it is of the essence that, wherever possible, matters should be publicised and there should be transparency? There should also be the opportunity for people who have been unjustly vilified to take action in response, including, if necessary, recourse to the law.

Simon Hughes: I agree. Just for the record, the meeting took place in public. My complaint was that it included in the papers before the adjudicating authority evidence and material that had been dealt with before and should not have been available. That is like evidence of previous unproven allegations being made available in a court case.
 There is a common willingness across the Committee for the authority to have the power that the amendment would give it. If the Minister rejects the amendment, what assurance can we have that such a power will be available and that, before it comes to a conclusion, the authority will have some wider approbation than just its own for its proposals?

Nick Hawkins: Once again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and if he wants to press the amendment to a Division, my hon. Friends and I will support him. For the reasons that he gave, it would be useful to have the matters set out in the Bill.

Charles Clarke: This is a rather different case from the previous amendment. It is not so much a question of assurances as of examining the reasons that the SIA might have for refusing to renew, revoking or suspending a licence. The clause simply refers to clause 7 and the licensing criteria contained there. The amendment sets out three specific examples, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). However, there are other potential examples and I will give a couple to illustrate why the SIA might decide to revoke or refuse a licence. New information might come to light that demonstrated that a licence holder no longer met the licensing criteria, and criminal cases might take place, which would mean that the person did not fulfil the definition that we described of a fit and proper person.
 We ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, not because—as with the previous amendment—we agree with the principle but disagree technically on whether it should be in the Bill, but because we can envisage circumstances that are not encompassed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), in which it would be appropriate for the local authority to refuse to renew, to revoke or suspend a licence. That is the fundamental reason why the wording in subsection (2) is the right approach, and the breadth in relation to clause 7 arises.

Simon Hughes: I understand the argument, but the Minister's second example is covered by paragraph (c), so he has given only one other circumstance that has not been included in the list so far.

Charles Clarke: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman thinks that my second example is covered by paragraph (c). I can see his point—a new criminal record could be considered as being in that category—and I do not mean this in an unhelpful spirit, but his point illustrates the difficulty of having a tightly defined list of criteria according to which a licence is refused or revoked, rather than a simple reference back to the licensing criteria set out in clause 7.
 I accept the hon. Gentleman's other point, which was reinforced by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), about the right of individuals to know about the situation and reasons for decisions, and to have transparency. I can assure the Committee that the SIA will have a procedure to ensure that licensees receive in writing the reasons for any decision made under the clause, so that they can examine them. Then, if they want to challenge the decision under the law, they will have material with which to make a judgment on whether to do so. 
 More generally, I assure the Committee that the authority will work under the law of the land as set out in the Bill, and as with other such authorities, everyone will accept that the law is paramount. If my giving reasons in writing helps to clarify that and provide assurance, I am happy to do so. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, for a reason that is different from the one that I gave for rejecting the previous amendment: the definition set out in it is too narrow. The authority will have to take account of all the considerations set out under clause 7 about which licensing criteria are to be considered.

Simon Hughes: I accept the Minister's argument, given that, for all we know, this may be the last complete month that he is at the Home Office, or at any Ministry, depending on the electorate's view. I do not want to give him too hard a time when he came so close to defeat in the previous debate. I would not want to make the Government any more nervous and ruin his reputation, so in a minute I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 I would just like one point to be clarified before I do that. If the Bill becomes law in this Session, how does the Minister envisage that the authority, or the Government, will publicise the proposed procedure in consultative form? What say will Parliament and the interested parties have in that second stage of the procedure?

Charles Clarke: The general issues of timing are dealt with in clause 26. I do not have anything particular to add to that.
 I can assure the Committee that we will publish consultative proposals on the procedures for comment by all interested parties before they are finally enacted. That will, of course, include the ability of the House itself to comment on the situation. We have said throughout that having a proper consultative process, to which everyone in the industry is committed, is an important aspect of the effectiveness of the legislation. That is why we will take that approach.

Simon Hughes: That is helpful and will reassure outside interests as much as Committee members. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Rates of duty for recovery vehicles

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bruce George: I noticed a look of dismay when I rose. It is 28 minutes since the proceedings began, and I have restrained myself so far. I hope that the dam has now been breached and water will flow more freely.
 I am not convinced that the appeals mechanism, straight from a refusal by the SIA to a magistrates court or the High Court, is appropriate. There could be 100,000, 200,000 or even more applications subject to a licensing process. I hope that companies eventually will be subject to compulsory licensing. There will then be a lot of people heading to magistrates courts all over the realm and SIA officials will be run ragged from Manchester to Walsall to Newcastle. 
 I do not understand why we could not have an appeals committee within the SIA, separate from the personnel department, perhaps headed by a senior judge, and involving those not taking part in the normal process of the regulatory authority. Does the Human Rights Act make such a process impossible? If an application were turned down, for whatever reason, within the time constraints, the applicant would write off to the authority or to an independent body within the SIA. Perhaps the Minister might say that only then would the applicant turn to a magistrates court. If members of the Committee are struggling with the complexities of the Bill, and we have not even seen the hundreds of pages of regulations that will ensue, how can a group of magistrates make a decision on whether a licence shall be approved, especially if some of the information is exceedingly confidential and may be based on intelligence sources? 
 Unless there is an overriding argument under the Human Rights Act, deep consideration should be given to a simple procedure by which the whole process could be expedited. It could be very fair. The Minister is not only taking no prisoners, he is not taking any amendments. I hope that, even at this late stage, it might be possible to have a more efficient and fairer system and to keep it away from magistrates, who are neither interested nor competent to make a judgment in this case.

Bridget Prentice: That is outrageous.

Bruce George: They are not competent, because they are overburdened with functions. They will have to read the legislation. They will have to do all sorts of things and this is not an appropriate matter for them.

Nick Hawkins: I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. My concern about the Bill was not in the direction that he has just suggested, but more that magistrates should have a greater role. As we pointed out on Second Reading, and as I have often said to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, there is a danger not only in that so many magistrates courts have closed during this Parliament, but in that the Government have seemed to move, in relation to liquor licensing, away from the lay magistracy—with all the expertise that it has built up and all its independence from the licensed trade—towards a system of local councillors dealing with the matter.
 We believe that lay magistrates should have a central role, so we agree with what the Government are proposing. We see no difficulty along the lines described by the right hon. Gentleman. Magistrates courts have experienced clerks to advise the lay magistrates on the nature of the law. That has always been the case. We want that to continue. Has the Minister had any further thoughts about the possible confusion that we described on Second Reading between the role of councillors in relation to licensing and what we regard as a sensible appellate role for lay magistrates, with possible further appeals beyond the magistrates to the Crown court?

Simon Hughes: I, too, take the view that a system is needed that goes to some judicial authority by way of oversight of licence granting. There are many licences, such as gaming licences and justices' licences granted for liquor and licences for music and dance. With the new licensing law, the likelihood is that more and more first decisions will be taken by local authorities. I support that. An appeal to the local court seems reasonable. People know which court it is. It is geographically based.
 I differ from the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) in that I believe that magistrates are trained to be licensing magistrates. They deal with all the licences, whether for market traders, nightclubs or whatever. They are used to working out who are fit and proper people. There are sometimes lawyers in important cases who do that all the time, too. They deal with licensing matters. They may be different parts of the spectrum, but they are all under the same umbrella. 
 We seem to have got locked into a historical system that gives us this 21-day rule. Most people do not live life in cycles of 21 days. It would be much fairer generally to allow people a month in which to appeal. People are likely to remember. Occasionally, people fall out of time simply because they do not remember, and 21 days means nothing to them. I simply flag that up. It is really a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department and other legal Departments as much as for the Home Office. The Minister has heard me make similar requests in the past. I simply ask him to consider a timetable that will allow people to understand the appeals process most easily.

Charles Clarke: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South on successfully tweaking the tails of the lawyers. The Home Office has some sympathy with the points raised about the need for a separate appeals system, and had originally proposed that the Secretary of State should establish an appeals tribunal by regulations. The Human Rights Act 1998 and natural justice itself require an avenue of appeal against authority decisions. That is an important part of our system.
 There was, however, substantial opposition in the other place—not only on the Opposition Benches—to an internalised appeals mechanism as favoured by my right hon. Friend, and originally by the Home Office, too. A powerful argument was put, which we finally decided to accept, that appeals should be to the legal system—to magistrates courts and to the Crown court. 
 I do not accept the suggestion that magistrates courts would not be competent to deal with such matters. Plenty of magistrates courts are competent to do so. However, I understand the point that it might be better to have an internal system, which could deal with some arguments more expeditiously than the full-scale legal process.

Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister accept that one of the difficulties with an internal system would be that an aggrieved party might nevertheless go to law, and would then do so through an application for judicial review of the Security Industry Authority's decision? That could be much slower and more costly for all concerned than the appellate system to which the Government have, reluctantly but rightly, agreed.

Charles Clarke: That is one of the arguments for going straight to the legal channel, rather than through other processes first. One of the first political lessons that I learned was from John Smith, the late leader of my party. He told me, at a key time, never to forget that the law will have its way. That is an important lesson, which I learned over many years and could pass on to many others. It is the point that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is really making, and is a reason for going down this path.
 I have much sympathy, as do the Government, with the crusade of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South to have more and more such processes dealt with in a non-legalistic way. The only aspect of his remarks that I cannot accept is that magistrates courts might not be competent to deal with such matters. 
 Substantial criticism, such as that made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, of the idea of a separate appeals process—rather than going straight to the legal system—made us feel that it could stand in the way of people's access to an appeal. That is why we tabled an amendment on Report in the Lords to get rid of the kind of proposal that my right hon. Friend suggested, and to replace it with what is now in the clause. That is the history of the matter. 
 Points have been made about the general relationship between councillors and magistrates over licensing, but I have nothing further to add on that. It will be debated in the context of liquor licensing when any legislation to implement the White Paper that we have published is considered by the House. That will be the appropriate place for that debate. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Register of licences

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 9, line 40, after ``requirements'', insert—
``(and which is not his usual residential address)''.
 I can make my point briefly, but the Opposition feel strongly about the matter. The point was made strongly on Second Reading, and we have seen nothing since then to change our minds. There is undoubtedly concern, which the Minister will probably acknowledge in his response, about a register of licensed people being open to public inspection. On Second Reading, on 28 March at column 983, I raised the sad fact that we have seen a huge increase in grudge attacks, which occur for all kinds of reasons, over recent years. For example, people have poured petrol through somebody's letterbox and set it alight. Sadly, such crimes can have devastating and tragic effects. 
 Our concern is that many small operators in the security business work and trade from their home addresses. Security, wheelclamping and operating as a bouncer are fields of work that can lead to grudges. We foresee that there may be grudge attacks, so an element of protection must be built into the legislation. We recognise that the Government want some kind of register, but we know that there is a problem when somebody's home address, which is also their trading address, is open to those who may want to take revenge. 
 I mentioned on Second Reading that that was brought home to the Solicitor-General and me when we made a joint visit to the Crown Prosecution Service office for my area, which is situated just south of my constituency in Guildford. Even senior people from the CPS have been the victims of threats by serious and organised criminals to themselves and members of their family. The Minister and the right hon. Member for Walsall, South have stressed from their considerable experience that they know that organised crime has played a part in security. When people who are involved in the administration of justice have to be transferred by their employers because of personal threats against them and members of their family by serious and organised criminals, there is clearly a significant danger. 
 My hon. Friends raised concerns about such matters in proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Representation of the People Act 2000. In section 69(4) of the former, the Government made some changes at our urging. Similar changes could be made to the Bill. We are dealing with important concerns that will not go away. I hope that the Minister will say that he not only takes the matter seriously, which I am sure that he and his officials do, but will consider tabling Government amendments on Report, even if they cannot accept the amendment today. If he is unable to say that, we shall want to pursue the matter today.

Simon Hughes: That raises the issue of how public people's addresses are, which has arisen in the context of all sorts of issues, such as animal experiments and Members of Parliament standing for elected office. I am keen to know what the process is for ensuring that somebody has an authoritative and up-to-date statement of an address, even if that need not be given in public. I understand the argument—I am not persuaded of it yet—that the personal address of the holder of a licence should not be known publicly. The licence holder may of course be corporate, in which case there is no excuse for the address not being public. I assume that that address should be the registered office of the company, and it would be illogical if it were not. In the case of personal licence holders, I should be interested to know what address would be valid other than their current personal address. In that context, I should be interested to know whether the Minister takes the view that because people are given licences to do a public job, their addresses should be made public.
 I assume that the Government intend that the authority will ensure that the register is accessible through all modern methods of communication. The main way in which the corporate and business sector will want to access information is through a website or a national database, rather than a local library, as in the past. Will the register of licences be held in a technologically accessible way? Of course, data protection issues arise. I concede that I have not thought the matter through, but a Home Office official doubtless has. I assume that, having applied for a licence, a person can expect the relevant details to be in the public domain and available to anyone with an interest in the sector.

Charles Clarke: The amendment would require the licence holder's address as published in the register to be other than his home address. Following the amendment of the clause in the House of Lords, where much of this debate took place, subsection (3)(b) provides that the address published in the register is that
``which satisfies the prescribed requirements''. 
In other words, the address must be that which is supplied when a person applies for a licence or a company approval. The clause will not require home addresses for anyone. Indeed, we believe that in the vast majority of cases the relevant address will be the business address of the firm employing the security operative. 
 The amendment would go a step further by requiring that the address always differ from the licence holder's usual residential address. We cannot go that far for the reason suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Some security operatives work from home as a matter of choice. It is true that the Bill as drafted would require publication of the home address in such circumstances, but I am not convinced that publication of the place of business should be a significant concern. Of course, people who work from home would already have made their address available, not least to potential customers. We are talking about a very narrow group of people who choose to work from home and who have no other address. We continue to believe that there should be an address for everyone in the system. If there is no alternative to a home address, we think it right that that address be given. 
 I can confirm for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that we intend that the register should be accessible through modern electronic means, rather than the local library. 
 On publicity, I can offer some reassurance to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. Subsection (4) states: 
 ``It shall be the duty of the Authority to ensure that such arrangements are in force as it considers appropriate''. 
That wording was chosen to give the authority a safeguard, in that it can consider whether it is appropriate to publish an address in a given circumstance. That safeguard should reassure him. If the amendment were accepted, there would be no address on the register for those who work solely from home. That would be unacceptable and we cannot go that far. On the basis of my comments and assurances, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister has, as I hoped, responded in an appropriately serious way. I hear what he says, but the problem is that one does not always choose, as he puts it, to work from home. Someone with a very small business, who works alone and has no substantial private means, might be unable to afford separate business premises and have no alternative to operating from home. Although I accept the point about the reference in subsection (4) to arrangements that the authority considers appropriate, there is a danger that it might make an exception only after a problem had been drawn to its attention. The trouble is that it would often be too late: by the time that the problem existed, the revenge attack would have already taken place. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, the whole register will probably be on the internet, and those who wants to commit grudge or revenge attacks on others need only press a few keys to find out their home address.
 In the light of that concern, I want to press the matter to a vote.

Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he thinks should happen in the case of those whose operation is so small that they work only from home? Should they not give their address? Should it be handled confidentially and not made open?

Nick Hawkins: My view, and that of my party, is that the authority needs to know the operational address, but it should not be given any publicity through an open register that would be on the internet.

Charles Clarke: That clarifies the hon. Gentleman's position. If I said to him that I would be prepared to consider whether individuals working from home in that category could ask for their information not to be published under subsection (4), would that modify his approach to the amendment?

Nick Hawkins: That is extremely helpful, and I hope that the Minister and his officials will continue to consider the matter and perhaps table an amendment on Report along those lines. If so, we would welcome the Government's change of heart. However, I still think that it would be useful, ``pour encourager les autres'', to vote on what is in the Bill. If the Government can subsequently improve on that through a Government amendment, as the Minister suggested, that would be of assistance.

Simon Hughes: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would say a little more to persuade me to support the amendment. If I am concerned that a Mr. Nick Hawkins, whom I have come across in a previous existence, is not the sort of person whom I would want to be given a licence for a particular job, and there are many Nick Hawkinses around—as I assume that there are—how will I know that the Mr. Nick Hawkins about whom I am concerned is the right one if I do not know his home address? If one just plucks an address out of the air that is nothing to do with one's home, that is obscuring the truth and putting people off being able to track down the very information that they need.

Nicholas Winterton: I call a Mr. Nick Hawkins.

Nick Hawkins: The only parliamentary Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Winterton.
 As long as the authority has an individual's full details, if there is any inquiry to which it thinks it proper to respond, it can make its own decision. My worry is that a public register could be used by a person who wished to commit a grudge attack. For example, if he knows that there is a Mr. Simon Hughes who is a bouncer in the Southwark, North and Bermondsey area, he has only to push a couple of buttons on a computer keyboard and up comes that Mr. Simon Hughes's home address. The hon. Gentleman and I, and all those of us who have been involved in court cases, have seen the horrendous consequences of such grudge attacks—which happen far too often and sometimes have the most tragic consequences—and know that we need to protect people against them. Sadly, we are talking about an industry in which grudge attacks are not merely a possibility, but almost an inevitability. It is all too common for people to try to take revenge against bouncers. 
 I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I wish to press the matter to a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 12..

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ian Stewart: This excellent Bill addresses the statutory framework. It will set up regulatory authorities and give powers, where appropriate, to local authorities.
 I have already referred to the importance of contractual matters in the maintenance of good standards. We have dealt with issues such as sick pay, training standards and proper employment contracts, and I would hope that when the regulatory bodies exercise their duties under the clause, they will look to those matters as well. 
 I want to discuss the philosophy behind the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has adequately discussed the industry.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I have listened extremely carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Clause 12 relates to the register of licences, and the philosophy behind the Bill is not relevant to it. Perhaps he will relate his remarks to the subject of the clause.

Ian Stewart: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Winterton.
 The register of licences, and the philosophy behind it, is extremely important. The learned contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South have been about the past. He referred to how the people whom we now prefer to call door stewards have been at the lower end of the scale and have not adhered to standards that the Committee would accept. Local authority licensing must be seen as having a more productive and civilised approach, involving women, for example. When physical contact is necessary, the intent should be about restraint and control, not about bouncing. That is the philosophy that should be behind licensing at that level. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Licensing at local authority level

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 10, line 38, after `Authority', insert—
`and the local authorities for the areas specified in the order'.
 The amendment would require local authorities to be consulted, which is a matter about which we feel strongly. It has relevance to a local authority in my constituency, the leader and chief executive of which were amazed when they consulted the Home Office about an effective scheme for nightclub bouncers about 18 months ago, and the Home Office, instead of helping to answer some of the various queries, wrote back saying that they were not entitled to have such a scheme. That was a peculiar response, but I do not hold the Minister personally responsible for that. 
 A new system is being set up, and I am sure that the Minister and the Committee will agree that it is important for local authorities to liaise closely with the new authority. It would be useful to write into the Bill a requirement for close liaison and prior consultation.

Charles Clarke: I was rather surprised by the hon. Gentleman's example, because that is not the general stance that we try to take. Will he be good enough to give me a copy of the correspondence, so that I can look into the matter and respond in detail on his specific point?

Nick Hawkins: I shall ensure that the Minister has all the details from the chief executive of the local authority. I took up the matter at the time, and one of the Minister's colleagues was good enough to say that it was not the normal response of the Home Office, as the Minister rightly said. Perhaps no one vetted a letter that was being sent to a local authority by an official rather than a Minister.
 I was asked to raise the matter, but there is a wider point to make. That example merely showed where things can go wrong between the Home Office and local authorities under the current system. It is because local authorities will have an important role under the new structure that we felt that it would be helpful to have something written into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say that he will keep the matter under review and discuss it with his officials. Even if he cannot accept our amendment today, I hope that he will table an amendment on Report.

Charles Clarke: I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the amendment because, with all respect, he has not fully understood the nature of the responsibility set out in the Bill. It establishes the Security Industry Authority as the central and authoritative body for the private security industry. The authority will have significant duties within the overall framework of its responsibility to the Secretary of State. It will have to consult local authorities about the delegation of its functions, as defined in the Bill, as they will be best placed to discuss the practicalities. The arrangements will be between the Security Industry Authority and local authorities.
 I look forward to seeing the correspondence on the issue that the hon. Gentleman identified. It will always be possible and appropriate for a Member of Parliament to bring such matters to the attention of the relevant Minister. There is no sense in bypassing that procedure, and the Government will always want to assure themselves that delegations to local authorities have been properly prepared. It may be that the general liaison arrangements will be between central and local government and that matters will be discussed in a general way. 
 I want to emphasise that the prime responsibility for the process of delegation lies with the Security Industry Authority, which will discuss with local authorities, both individually and generally, how to proceed. We have discussed the general principle of consultation before, and I can assure the Committee that, as is normal, the Government will consult local authorities, the private security industry and all other interested parties about the details of the process. In fact, it was consultation that led to the White Paper that led to the Bill. 
 The consultation with local authorities that is the subject of the clause is primarily the responsibility of the SIA. That is why we make the distinction that we do in subsections (6) and (7). I hope that that clarifies the situation and that, on the basis of what I have said, the hon. Gentleman with withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: I hear what the Minister says. However, the clause gives the Secretary of State a wide order-making power. According to subsection (1),
 ``The Secretary of State may by order make provision for local authorities to carry out some or all of the Authority's relevant licensing functions''. 
However, in subsection (6), the one that we seek to amend, the Secretary of State is put under a duty to consult the authority, but not the local authorities that will be given the power. That seems inconsistent. Because there has been difficulty in the past, at least in connection with one local authority of which I have personal knowledge—it might be common elsewhere; I hope not—it would be useful for the local authorities, not merely the main authority, to be consulted before the Secretary of State exercises that power.

Charles Clarke: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that there should be both a consultative process by the Secretary of State in the Home Office and a consultative process by the SIA? I should like to be clear about that before we come to a decision on the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: We are saying that before the Secretary of State exercises his order-making powers under the clause, he should consult the local authorities for the areas to which the orders would relate. It seems a sensible thing to include in the Bill. Nevertheless, as the Minister said that he will keep the matter in mind and will look at the correspondence in due course, we may be able to persuade the Government to table a further amendment at a later stage once he has considered the matter with his officials, so it would not be appropriate to press the amendment to a vote, but I take on board what has been said and I am grateful that he will consider the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bruce George: You almost did not notice that I wanted to speak, Mr. Winterton. I am sure that you did not employ a Nelsonian tactic in failing to look at me through your spying glass. It was merely inadvertent that you did not notice my 18-stone-12 frame.
 If an outsider assessed the Bill, he would say that it was all about bouncers and wheelclampers. I do not understand why wheelclamping comes under private security, and some would argue that bouncers—door supervisors—are not strictly part of security either. However, they are, and the matter is in urgent need of reform. I am not convinced that the Home Office's subcontracting the task of licensing door supervisors to local authorities is wise. I hope that if the measure goes through, the Home Office will evaluate how local authorities perform in order to see whether they can—as I should have hoped—be considered to be part of the private security industry, and be licensed and regulated directly by the SIA. That would result in 50,000 personnel paying £50 for a licence, which would greatly enhance the authority's revenue-gathering capability. 
 One of my concerns is that the licensing authorities of local authorities could be susceptible to party political activity, so judgment that should be legal and rational could be bound up with party politics. I know of an exemplary case, which I will say is hypothetical. A senior politician signs up 40 black cab drivers disenchanted with the way in which the licensing authority has been operating. They are in his political party, and they turn up for a ward meeting to boot out those who are there, and then turn up to a selection conference to endorse that politician. Is there a quid pro quo? Licences are issued, disciplinary action is taken—will political pressure be exerted? 
 I am pleased to say that, in the case to which I am referring, pressure has been resisted, but the temptation is there. Decisions on licences for local companies and individuals will be made by human beings who are subject to the same pressures as hon. Members, and in many ways to a greater extent. On occasion, those people, be they Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat or of other political allegiances, will be tempted to use political reasons to make what ought to be administrative judgments.

Ian Stewart: Is not the alternative to my right hon. Friend's analysis that local politicians understand the problems in the locality better than remote civil servants or officers of other authorities? That local knowledge—the understanding that one group of old-fashioned councillors have turfed out another group of old-fashioned councillors—is really important.

Bruce George: My hon. Friend's argument has its attractions, but there are counter-arguments as well. The Home Office has said that, on balance, this is the route that we are going down. I accept that decision; I am merely making a point and will, in no more than four further minutes, make some other points that I hope the Home Office will take into account.

Rosie Winterton: In Doncaster, in terms of the licensing of bouncers, the police work at a local level and know what is happening on the ground. That is very important, and as the crime and disorder partnerships are working increasingly well, it would be a shame to transfer the decision making to national level, where those involved would not have that local knowledge.

Bruce George: I am acquiescent, but not enthusiastic, and would like the measure to be under review. One of my great concerns is that we are talking about at least 50,000 personnel. They have, putting it at its best, an image problem. In reality many of the people protecting the public inside and deterring the public outside are part of the drugs scene, and have their rake-off of the profits. That is why it is incredibly lucrative for an individual if he or she wins a contract to be a bouncer or a door supervisor or for a company if it wins a security contract . As a result, a number of gang wars are taking place in our cities, and it is quite right that the Government are stepping in and doing something.

Ian Stewart: Now my right hon. Friend and others will see the significance of my short comment about philosophy. It is important that we positively promote the activities of women as door stewards and create a training and standards-based environment.

Bruce George: Women must search women. One cannot have a lecherous 50-year-old male performing an intimate body search on a woman attending a disco. However, there are dangers. I met the head of security of a company, a very attractive woman, who was asked by a drunken yob at a door, ``Do you believe in equality, missus?'' She said yes, and he punched her on the nose, saying, ``There you are, I would have done that to a male.'' It is a dangerous job.
 All the bad publicity is directed towards the bouncers, but for the money that they get, those who are honest and professional are in a very exposed and dangerous situation. Although they often mete out severe punishments, there are many door supervisors who have been viciously attacked and need some protection via the legislation. In the absence of any security legislation before now, the only way in which local authorities could meet the problem was by using the public entertainment licence process, in order to fill a vacuum. 
 I shall now rattle through a few points that will be boring but relevant. I am not certain what role the local authorities will play under the proposed system. Ideally, it should be one of enforcement, with licensing and standards to be met by supervisors in the SIA. The Economic and Social Research Council funded research into local registration schemes that revealed that they suffered several problems under local authority licensing. For instance, there is a problem with reciprocity when, often at great expense, door supervisors have to register in different local authority areas, undergoing vetting and training for each. The standards varied significantly among the schemes, and it was possible for some door supervisors to be granted registration in one area but not another. The study concluded that enforcement regimes were often chaotic, and that in many places revocation of registration was rare. A widespread system of informal practices to get round registration has emerged, including the forging of licences. 
 The Home Office commissioned research—the safer door project, which was about door registration schemes and was conducted to develop best practice—from a gentleman named Walker. He identified best practice for a national scheme, but did so in the context of there being no national licensing structure for the private security industry into which supervisors could fit. He also identified the need for a national scheme. 
 I agree, but argue that licensing and the setting of standards should be pursued through the SIA. Local authorities have a role to play in the enforcement of the provisions through their general licensing function, enabling them to receive applications for licences and make decisions on their approval and issue, among other matters. Even according to national standards, differences between schemes may still be created, which will lead to further problems such as those that I have identified. 
 I ask the Home Secretary not to junk what the Home Office has decided but to look at it carefully. Some licensing authorities have poor standards. It is crucial that the Home Office gets it right on the issue, as there could be a great danger to the paying public and people living or wandering in the vicinity of a nightclub. I merely ask the Home Secretary to give mature reflection to some of my points to see where, if he sub-contracts to local authorities to undertake licensing, he should minimise that role. He should ensure that syllabuses are determined nationally by the SIA and not left to the vagaries of local authorities, some of which are good and some of which are bad. The trainers must be subject to approval, so that their training schemes are good. 
 The Home Office should carefully monitor the first couple of years of the operation of a legitimate local authority licensing scheme, to see whether the old bad habits are replicated in the new system. The Home Office must lay down strict standards. It should not minimise the role of local authorities, nor give them a great deal of discretion. Local authorities should be allowed to be the agents of central Government, not freewheeling organisations that can replicate the practices that have led to the Government's wanting to take a stronger hand in the process.

Nick Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. As he and others may remember, we expressed concern on Second Reading that there might be too great a role for local authorities. The dangers of corruption—people being ``got at''—to which he referred are clear. We had a different solution. Rather than the Government's proposed new authority doing more nationally, we suggested that the system should be much more like that for liquor licensing, with more of the duties and powers exercised by magistrates.
 Magistrates have successfully exercised such powers over many years in relation to liquor licensing, because it is far more difficult for them to be ``got at''. In this country, there is no history of corruption by magistrates, whereas sadly, in some cases, there has been such a history in local authorities. 
 I recognise that there are many success stories for local licensing schemes. I referred to one in a local authority in my constituency: Surrey Heath has had a successful nightclub bouncer registration scheme. Nevertheless, the Government have decided to go down a certain route, and we felt that it would be better to introduce a consultation element, which we suggested in amendment No. 29. We withdrew that following the Minister's helpful remarks, but I want to put on record our concern that the Government are making too great a move in the direction of local authorities, which can, as the right hon. Gentleman said, be ``got at'' in some areas. The Government have been persuaded to take the appeal mechanism to the magistrates court, but not to remove the power to delegate to local authorities. 
 I hope that the Minister recognises that the matter must be kept under review. If the right hon. Gentleman's fears, which we in Opposition tend to share, are borne out in reality, we hope that the Government—or a future Conservative Government—can reconsider the matter and, if necessary, decide that it might be better to have it dealt with by local licensing benches and lay magistrates, as happens with liquor licensing.

Ian Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that his over-emphasis on what can happen in terms of corruption at local government level could lead to an anti-democratic position? Such matters must be kept in balance. From time to time, there is a small amount of jiggery-pokery at local government level, but it is dangerous to argue that that could a be reason for not allowing local government a role in this issue.

Nick Hawkins: There is an issue of judgment. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is on one side of the divide, but we are on the other because a history of what he delicately referred to as ``jiggery-pokery'' does not exist for lay magistrates. When talking about having things done effectively and properly, we have always supported the independent role of the lay magistracy. The Government have made their view clear and come to a judgment. We will see what happens if and when the Bill becomes law, and I will listen with interest to the Minister's response.

Simon Hughes: We have taken a view that I support, which is that the right level for initial decisions is in the local authority. Of course, local authority members and officers may be open to influence and corruption, but there are ways of dealing with that. By and large, their record is good and is getting better. Better scrutiny, auditing and external assessment are taking place, and there is an appeals process. We must remember that the system is about activities going on in different parts of the country. It is better that those elected to represent the community take the initial decision about the appropriateness of a licence. We strongly believe that that should happen at a local level. The authority will exist—we assume—to maintain a consistency of standards, and I hope that other action by the Government and authorities will ensure that.

Charles Clarke: I begin by paying tribute to Andy Walker, to whom the right hon. Member for Walsall, South referred, who was funded by the Home Office, as police officers sometimes are, to examine particular problems and make proposals. I met him and read his report carefully during the preparation of the Bill.
 I will give the assurance that I think is sought that not only we but the new authority will keep the matter under review. 
 In essence, we were faced with three options, and we carefully considered each of them. The first was to leave the matter entirely to local authorities, and many of them, although not the majority, are working in those areas. The second was to establish an SIA bureaucracy that is able to reach into every community in Britain and license directly. I should add that we considered the magistrates option, but not at length, because it presented similar problems to those that arise in relation to local authorities. The third option—and, as you would expect, Mr. Winterton, we chose the third way—was the approach set out in the Bill, giving the SIA the power to establish the licensing process by dealing with the issues of syllabuses, training and standards.

John Bercow: Syllabi.

Charles Clarke: I was wondering whether to say syllabi or syllabuses and I decided on the latter to discover whether a pedant would intervene. I am glad to say that the sprat that I laid caught the mackerel—and it must be said that it is a fine mackerel. The syllabi, or syllabuses, the training and the raising of standards will be established by the SIA. The local authority's principal role will be to process and to make certain key judgments.
 I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about the ability to deal with corruption in the local authority context. That problem is getting better, but the local authority should take decisions in that regard on the basis of a national framework. The clause addresses the question of how that will evolve. In practice, precisely the kind of review that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has mentioned will take place. Different local authorities will adopt different approaches and methods, but the principle of consistency will be promoted by the proposed approach. 
 I conclude my commendation of the clause by reinforcing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central, that the local crime reduction partnerships, in which the local authority, the police and often—although not as often as I would like—the local magistrates are participating, provide the correct framework within which to deal with city centre issues such as those that we have debated.

Bruce George: My opinion of local government is coloured by my experiences of my own local authority. However, in general, it has a good record with regard to regulating door supervisors.
 My question—to which an answer might not be available at present—is about local authority regulation of fire safety and security personnel at pop concerts. I have been to many such concerts to look at how local authorities supervise them. Indeed, I had to see Tina Turner twice, just to check whether my initial analysis was correct. Is the Minister satisfied with local authority regulation with regard to security, crowd management and safety at pop concerts that can be staged in venues that range in capacity from 500 to as many as 100,000 people, as was the case at Knebworth, where I suffered by watching Oasis perform? That is not the greatest way to spend one's time. [Interruption.] 
 Is the Minister satisfied that the regulatory structures for the oversight of the security and stewarding of events that might be attended by as many as 100,000 people are covered adequately by the legislation? Will he need to examine further the question of stewarding to discover the answer to that?

Charles Clarke: I should point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) wanted to put it on the record that Oasis is a great pop group—or rather was a great pop group. I do not think that my colleagues would like the implications of my right hon. Friend's remarks to go unchallenged.
 There are serious issues about the relations between local authorities and the police in stewarding such events. The Association of Chief Police Officers has recently produced new guidelines on dealing with such matters, and it is important to keep the issue under close review, which I assure my right hon. Friend that we will. I cannot give an off-the-cuff answer to how the matter currently operates, but I accept and agree with his point that it is problematic. I hope that the Committee will accept the clause.

Nicholas Winterton: Before I put the question, I always seek to help the Committee. I did O-level Greek and A-level Latin, and I can tell the Committee that ``syllabuses'' is the English word. I am sure that Hansard will minute that.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Register of approved contractors

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: I am grateful for the ruling and explanation that you have just given, Mr. Winterton. I am not a classicist and I am happy to defer to your superior knowledge, and that of those who advise you.
 The clause is part of an important set of clauses relating to the approved contractors register. Subsection (3)(e) contains a reference to 
``the conditions of the approval.'' 
Will the Minister confirm that, in cases in which individuals are registered to provide the same services, there will be no difference in the treatment of such individuals? It will help the Committee if he describes the types of conditions that he envisages, and how they may vary from one case to another. For example, if an individual is registered to provide only some of the services that fall within the rubric of the Bill, what form will the conditions take? Will he give examples of other instances in which a person is registered for the provision of a wider range of services? An explanation or enlargement on subsection (3)(e) would be useful. 
 The Minister will be aware that subsection (4)(b) states: 
``securing that such publicity is given to any modification or withdrawal of an approval as will bring it to the attention of person likely to be interested in it.'' 
That is probably an innocuous provision, but will he explain the types of circumstances that he envisages? Is the significance of the subsection that people who ordinarily use the services of a person who is registered under the terms of the clause would be such individuals who would be notified of a withdrawal or modification? Precisely how would the individuals or groups of people who were to be so informed be decided, and what form would the publicity take? Will it be standard, has it been decided, does it await decision, when would notification occur, and in what form would it be learned? 
 Subsection (5) refers to the imposition of a fee that the authority considers appropriate. What do the Government have in mind? 
 On the strength of my brief inquiries, I am happy to rest my case, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Charles Clarke: Most of the hon. Gentleman's points were focused on subsection (3)(e). The conditions are a general reference to any other conditions that the authority is empowered to attach to approvals on the register.
 Subsection (4)(b) relates to the authority's ability to notify through the trade press, for example, any change that has occurred. It is not an injunction to use a particular form of publicity but an empowerment to enable the authority to deal with the matter. We do not have any proposals for a particular approach to publicity. We consider that to be a matter for the authority. 
 I cannot say at the moment what level of fee will be involved, but I imagine that it will be low. We envisage that, as I suggested earlier in response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, the register will principally be electronic and will therefore always be current. It will be regularly updated, and people will have access to it. The fee may be extremely low, or even nugatory, but we do not as yet have a proposed amount. It depends on the practical issues that arise. I urge the Committee to accept the clause.

John Bercow: The Minister helpfully answered my second and third questions, but I was slightly less comfortable with his response, as I shall accurately describe it, to my first inquiry. It seemed to amount to saying that the conditions of the approval are the conditions of the approval. That is not only tautologous but unhelpful. However, I suspect that further and better particulars on the conditions that the Government have in mind will emerge in due course, and I shall be beady-eyed on the subject at a later stage.

Charles Clarke: The example of an approval that has just been suggested is that a particular code of practice would have to be adhered to by a contractor in particular circumstances.

John Bercow: That is helpful, but I still believe that there may be scope for giving us further information at a later stage of our deliberations on the Bill. On the strength of the answers that I have received, and content as I broadly am with this relatively unexceptional clause, I rest my case and do not dissent from the Minister's comments.

Bruce George: I am sorry to disappoint you again, Mr. Winterton. Perhaps I should learn some Latin to meet your approval.
 The issue of approved contractors encompasses clauses 14 through to 18. I have not the slightest intention of making speeches on all those clauses. I believe that the points can all be subsumed in a four-minute speech on clause 14. I promise not to speak on any of the others, or on my amendment No. 5, under clause 17. 
 This is a cop-out. The idea of asking companies whether they are to be subjected to additional scrutiny and saying that they will be given a little badge at the end of it is nonsense. Whoever dreamed it up and imposed it on the Home Office wants their collective head reading. 
 A company is more than an amalgamation of people. It seems bonkers to license individuals but to let the entity for which they work choose whether to be subject to self-approval. Good companies will go through the process of approval, but bad companies will not—until they are compelled to do so. Bad companies will hide behind words by saying that they have been licensed, meaning in essence that their personnel have been licensed, when they have not voluntarily submitted themselves to approval under the Government's ideas. That is truly wrong. 
 I share the anxiety that has been expressed about excessive regulation of companies, but the private security industry is different from ordinary firms, in which no public safety issues may be at stake. Most reputable firms will be queueing up to be regulated by the authority. There are many jurisdictions throughout the world, some not known for their liking of excessive bureaucracy, that license the companies involved. For example, Hong Kong and most of the states in the United States, especially Florida and Texas, are not known for imposing unnecessarily hard burdens on their local industry. In western Europe, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden fall into that category, as do all the states in Australia. It is nonsense not to include all the companies in all the sectors and to say to them, ``You as a company will be subject to approval and will have to prove all sorts of factors, such as the competence of the directors, the chairman and the senior management—that they are working in the right premises, have the proper insurance and meet the strict criteria.'' 
 In the United Kingdom, one may compare the private security industry with other sectors of the economy. Under the Council for Registered Gas Installers—CORGI—scheme, all gas installers must be registered. In a wide variety of industrial sectors of the United Kingdom, firms are subject to varying forms of special regulation. Regulation applies to agriculture, aviation, banks and building societies, electricity suppliers, financial services, the gaming industry, the gas suppliers, the insurance firms, the meat processing industry—although it has not been applied well enough in that case. The list goes on: telecommunications, television and radio broadcasting and the water industry are all subject to intervention to protect the public, and the companies in almost all those cases must be regulated. 
 I asked the Library to do research on my behalf, which I will willingly forward to the Minister, investigating company obligations in the financial services sector. I have been told in great detail that the companies themselves must be regulated—not voluntarily. That includes companies providing insurance and banking, as well as those in the financial services sector, credit licences companies and employment bureaux. All those companies are subject to scrutiny and approval, so that if the company fails to meet the standards it is not issued with a licence. 
 I cannot understand why the private security industry, which has more than its share of criminals, charlatans and rogues, should be allowed to get away without companies being licensed and registered. If the Minister will not accept an amendment to impose the duty for all companies to be licensed, I hope that his successor will persuade the Home Secretary and the authority that the voluntarism enshrined in the clauses should be junked as quickly as possible and that the better regulation taskforce should be asked to regulate and advise other sectors more effectively. The security industry will come of age only if the principle of voluntarism is replaced by compulsory regulation and security companies fall in line with other companies. I hope that eventually, when the legislation is enacted, there will be a swift evaluation and what is now voluntary will become compulsory.

Charles Clarke: I was almost on the verge of making a point of order to get your guidance on how to proceed, Mr. Winterton. As my right hon. Friend said, a number of clauses deal with the points that he makes. If you agree, I would like to deal with the arguments now, although the amendments tabled to clause 17 by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and by my right hon. Friend all address much the same point.

Nicholas Winterton: I am very happy that the Minister should deal with those arguments now, in the hope that some self-discipline will then be shown by all members of the Committee.

Charles Clarke: I have to say to my right hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the point is real and serious and was rightly made on Second Reading. We have established a process that is set out in clause 17 and specifically allows the Secretary of State to turn the voluntary scheme into a compulsory one, if necessary, but a decision to do so would be taken only following a recommendation from the authority and after exhaustive and extensive consultation with the industry, the police and other interested parties.
 Two propositions led us not to opt for the compulsory route recommended by my right hon. Friend. The first is the question of the wrong that we are attempting to right. What is the extent of the criminality—against which the Bill is principally focused—in particular sectors of the industry? The conclusion that we came to—and we were pressed by the better regulation taskforce—is that criminality undoubtedly applies to certain sections of the private security industry. For those sections, the existence of criminality—my right hon. Friend spoke earlier about door stewards and drugs—is overwhelming, and the need to assume powers undeniable. In other sectors, however, no one could imagine any such criminality emerging in the future. 
 That is why we set up a process to review the circumstances. I can tell my right hon. Friend that criminality has been at the core of our investigations. I would be interested to know what he believes, but we were convinced of the existence of criminality and of the need for a compulsory approach to deal with certain sectors but not others, and that has led to the structure of the Bill. 
 My right hon. Friend asked about the worth of self-regulatory schemes. Again, different schemes apply in different parts of the industry. Are the schemes genuine or sham? Are they a reality? How do they operate? Our general disposition—and this is probably the only area of disagreement with my right hon. Friend—is to prefer a self-regulatory scheme that is properly scrutinised under a truly independent authority to a compulsory process further down the line. 
 Those are the two main considerations that led us to adopt our present course. A third more minor consideration was the scale of work once the authority was established. We debated such considerations in relation to other aspects of the Bill but they are less important in this particular respect. I hope that that explains why we adopted the course that we did. 
 I want to put it on record, as I did on Second Reading, that it is one of the key responsibilities of the authority to deal with the matters raised by my right hon. Friend. When a case arises that the police, the industry, politicians or the authority believe warrants a compulsory approach, the Bill contains the powers for the Secretary of State to adopt it. Clause 17(1) states: 
 ``The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that persons of prescribed descriptions are to be prohibited from providing prescribed security industry services unless they are for the time being approved . . . in accordance with the arrangements''. 
My right hon. Friend's amendment proposes ``shall'' instead of ``may'', but we believe that we should move forward steadily, making proper assessments as we go.

Simon Hughes: Which significant organisations or individuals recommended the voluntary scheme that the Government are adopting, and which big players were the most important lobbyists for the compulsory scheme?

Charles Clarke: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman off the cuff, but the Government's overall approach is designed to minimise rather than maximise regulation. The vehicle to carry it out is the better regulation taskforce, to which my right hon. Friend referred. It has been a considerable factor in our thinking on the matter. Certain industries make the case in respect of their particular industries; for example, on Second Reading, we discussed information technology security consultants. Thus I cannot give the answer that the hon. Gentleman is looking for, but that is why we are where we are.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister provide an answer to my question soon, either by writing to me or placing an answer in the Library?

Charles Clarke: I shall provide an answer for the hon. Gentleman and members of the Committee. I cannot guarantee that it will be comprehensive, but I shall give the fullest information that I can. Mostly, it will revolve around the responses to our White Paper.
 In conclusion, the arguments that I made in responding as constructively as possible to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) are essentially the same arguments that I would put in response to my right hon. Friend's amendment to clause 17 and the amendments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to clause 15. That is the thrust of my case, so I will not repeat those points. I have tried to set out as clearly as I can the basis of the Government's thinking on that important aspect of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: In trying to rationalise and order what I say, I shall save my comments about my amendments until we come to the next clause.
 Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: Before we move to clause 15, I seek to give the Committee some help and guidance, so that the whole of the Bill can be properly scrutinised by the Committee. We have approximately another 40 minutes this morning and two and a half hours this afternoon, from 4:30 till 7 o'clock. The amendment paper shows that there are 12 clauses, one new clause, two schedules and a number of amendments still to consider. I urge all Committee members to take that into account as they contribute to the debate. Clause 15 Arrangements for the grant of approvals

Clause 15 - Arrangements for the grant of approvals

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 11, line 26, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
 `It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that there are arrangements in force for granting approvals to persons who are providing security industry services in England and Wales.'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 48, in page 11, line 27, leave out from `who' to end of line 30 and insert—
`(a) are providing security industry services in England and Wales and seek approval in respect of any such services that they are providing, or are proposing to provide; or
(b) are providing security industry services in England and Wales and are deemed to be acting as a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998.'.

Simon Hughes: As the Minister said, the amendment seeks to change the nature of the system that we are considering for approved contractors from a voluntary to a mandatory system. There are two alternatives on the amendment paper: amendment No. 49 simply provides that it shall be a duty of the authority to secure arrangements for granting approvals, and it removes the second part of clause 15; and amendment No. 48 seeks to provide the facility of arrangements generally, but makes the arrangements compulsory for those contractors who act as a public authority under the definition found in the Human Rights Act 1998. One option is that the register would be compulsory for everyone; the other option is that the register would be a discretionary, or opt-in, register, except for those contractors who fall within the realm of public authorities.
 An obvious example of the second option was the subject of a major debate in the House of Lords. The debate was about sub-contractors to public authorities, such as the police. It could be a school or a local authority housing estate that was employing people as security guards. It could be any number of other people acting on behalf of a public authority. The reason for the amendment and the definition of a public authority in clause 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is to ensure that people who were doing a public service job would be compulsorily registered, even though they were a private firm under tendering and contracting-out processes. If one is dealing with a public agency one should know who is involved in it. 
 Subject to how the debate goes, I shall certainly ask the Committee to vote on amendment No. 48. I hope that it will receive support from both sides of the Committee. I can be brief because the general nature of the argument has been entered into by both the right hon. Member for Walsall, South and the Minister. I understand the starting point, which is that when we move from no system at all to a new system we have to decide whether it should be compulsory or developmental. The Minister argued for a half-way house, in that we are starting with an opt-in system but the Bill will provide for it to become a compulsory system by ministerial decision. I am grateful that the second option is available. 
 I do not entirely buy the Minister's third reason, which he said was the least important of his three reasons. He said that the Government were conscious of the scale of work. If one sets up an authority and a register, there are more people if registration is compulsory, but it is a relative difference rather than a significant one. Once a system is going, people will be needed to run it and the more applications there are, the more will be processed. I understand the argument, but once one has bitten the bullet and set up all the overheads and the management costs are all in place, it will matter only marginally whether one has a compulsory or a voluntary system. 
 The Minister's first argument was about whether what we seek to put right is a weighing factor. The Government have come to a clear conclusion. As the right hon. Member for Walsall, South reminds us, the Bill has probably had one of the longest gestation periods of any post-war legislation, although other matters have been hanging around in the Home Office for a very long time.

Charles Clarke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the lengthy period of gestation from my right hon. Friend's first Bill is entirely down to the Government. We have moved speedily on the matter. Our predecessors moved rather slowly.

Simon Hughes: I seem to remember that there was one of those 18-year interludes. The Minister would not expect me to argue that it was an interlude entirely of darkness surrounded by two Administrations of enlightenment. That has not been our view.
 The Bill has been around for a long time. The Government decided to grasp the nettle and bite the bullet—two cliches in one sentence—and we are grateful for that. Having done so, it is silly only to go half way. My colleagues and I come from a tradition that says that one should not legislate when it is not necessary. If we are to have a system for customer and consumer protection, it should not be a two-tier system. It is like saying that one can register one's car for an MOT test, but it is not necessary. Half the cars on the road would therefore be ones with, for example, unacceptable emissions. It is like saying that people can set up a pub, but that they do not have to apply for licence. 
 I do not understand the logic of the public policy argument. Here are people providing services which we think should be controlled, but we do not think that it is reasonable to expect everyone to buy into it. As the right hon. Member for Walsall, South said, those with something to hide will be the least willing to register. Therefore, it is not surprising that, among others, the British Security Industry Association and reputable companies such as Group 4 believe that there should be—another cliche—a level playing field. Having the same rules for everyone is the only way to ensure fair competition, consumer protection and a system that is guaranteed to work.

Charles Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, with MOTs for cars and licensing for pubs, for example, you are talking about one activity that is clearly definable across the country, whereas with the private security industry, you are talking about a family of different industries, which are related but have different characteristics?

Nicholas Winterton: Order. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey might be talking about those industries, but I am not.

Charles Clarke: I apologise, Mr. Winterton. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the private security industry is a family of different industries, to which different considerations of criminality and regulations apply, in contrast with the examples that he gave of relatively uniform activity?

Simon Hughes: I partly buy that argument, although, if we take the passing of the MOT test, there are rafts of vehicles—commercial vehicles, private motor cars and others. There is also a family, albeit smaller, for music, dance and alcohol licences. The situation is not as straightforward as the Minister described.
 One might want to say also that certain parts of the industry are more in need of regulation than others. The Minister seems to be saying that the Government are providing an umbrella authority that, in theory, will regulate in one area but not in another. The problem is that that may not happen. Each sector will be different—wheelclamping, bouncers on club doors or people patrolling estates. There will be a voluntary scheme for everyone and no one will have to register, which is the weakness. Had the Minister said that there should be a voluntary system for wheelclamping, bouncers and private security firms on local authority estates, that would have been fine. There will be no similarity, however, which means that we will be left a system in which there is no guarantee that, when contracts are entered into, someone necessarily buys only the registered scheme. It will take a long time—we should consider the British Standards Institution or the building trade for example. There are still huge numbers of cowboy builders, who normally rip off customers. The surprising experience of the consumer industry is that many users of building industry services do not check whether someone is registered as an approved plumber, roofer, carpenter or whatever. As such, the users have little recourse. 
 Even the travel industry took a long time to reach its standard, although—I might be wrong; I do not pretend to be an expert—it is now almost impossible to travel abroad without using a company recognised by the Association of British Travel Agents. My experience tells me that, if we are talking about consumer protection in areas of criminality, it is better to have a system that does not rely on the intelligence or perspicacity of the consumer to work out whether he or she is dealing with a kosher or approved system or company. I cannot see a great fairness in the Government's approach, given the strength of the views of reputable representatives of industry, who are in favour of compulsory registration, or of some reputable large players, such as Group 4, which the Government have used for security services in the prison sector and elsewhere. 
 I do not want to labour my wider points, but let me mention a final specific issue. I urge the Government to reflect that it would discredit and be unhelpful to public authorities to allow them to use people who are not registered. The public sector has enough difficulty making choices. It would make life much easier for public authorities if everyone who wanted to work in that sector had to take the prior clearance route. Otherwise, nothing in the compulsory competitive tender system—the best-value debate—will guarantee that the best-value choice will be someone who is registered, even though officers can report and recommend at both local government and central Government level. 
 I do not want to open a difficult wound, but people might say, as some Tory Members did on a famous issue recently, that they accept the principle but do not want to sign up. To take that view would not disqualify someone from tendering for a prospective contract. 
 I am sure that we shall return to the matter. I understand the Minister's arguments, but do not find them persuasive. If we do not take this step now, there will be small probability of moving to a compulsory system in the near future, whoever is in government. Large numbers of people will continue to complain that the system has not given them the protection that they expected. Having waited so long and at last seen the Government introduce a welcome Bill, we should do the job properly, rather than doing only half of it.

Nicholas Winterton: If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will withdraw amendment No. 49, I will happily allow a division on amendment No. 48. I shall ask him to move it formally at the appropriate time.

Charles Clarke: I understand the arguments that have been made, but they do not convince me. I think that the arguments that I made earlier address the issues. There are differences between the various parts of the private security industry, and we must learn and identify the ill at each stage before moving to a compulsory stage.

Simon Hughes: The Government are obviously trying to concertina the debate. Ministerial conversions happen rarely, and they are even more rare when colleagues have held the line up the road, so I was not entirely expecting one. I do not know whether either the Minister or I will be around to see who is right, but, for the time being, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 48, in page 11, line 27, leave out from ``who'' to end of line 30 and insert— 
``(a) are providing security industry services in England and Wales and seek approval in respect of any such services that they are providing, or are proposing to provide; or 
 (b) are providing security industry services in England and Wales and are deemed to be acting as a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998.''.—[Mr. S. Hughes.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: I should like to put two questions to the Minister in relation to clause 15. First, what is the significance and potential application of the words in brackets in subsection (2)(c)? Secondly, in relation to subsection (4), are the regulations to be determined in accordance with the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure?

Charles Clarke: On subsection (4), negative resolution procedure is the right answer. On the significance of the words in brackets in subsection (2)(c), which I am carefully studying as I respond, they simply mean that the conditions that are being discussed apply whatever the situation. The wording is clear:
``such conditions (whether or not connected with the provision of the services in respect of which the approval is granted)'' 
The conditions need not be associated with the provision of the service in relation to which the approval is granted; they can be more general in character. In my view it is straightforward, but I may have misunderstood a subtle point with which the hon. Member for Buckingham seeks to transfix me.

John Bercow: What the Minister says is both true and, of itself, not entirely adequate. He is right that the literal meaning of the words in brackets is clear. I also accept that it therefore means conditions other than those that relate specifically to defined services for which approval has been granted. All I am saying to the Minister, in the politest possible way, is that it would be helpful to have some indication of what those conditions might be.

Charles Clarke: I am glad that I was clear, because I thought that my answer was confused. I am now even clearer that I was clear when I first answered, which is why my natural eloquence, if that is the way to put it, failed me.
 The clause is intended to indicate that the conditions that are laid down and contain the approval can deal with any aspect of concerns about a particular organisation. The conditions do not have to be connected with the provision of the services in respect of which the approval is granted. For example, if an approval is being sought to deal in manned guarding, but there are issues concerning the company's dealings in wheelclamping, that could be a consideration in the establishment of such conditions, even if it was not to do with the manned guarding for which the application had been made. I may have misunderstood the point and, as the hon. Gentleman is always so rapier-like, I am concerned not to make a mistake about this, but I think that my remarks are clear. 
 I was slightly surprised that Opposition Members voted with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on the last amendment. I was also genuinely interested to see that sea change in Conservative party attitudes, which is important to note. With that in mind, I hope that clause 15 can stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: I, at 12.43 pm on Tuesday 1 May, am satisfied.

Nicholas Winterton: Obviously, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is not.

Simon Hughes: I do not want to undermine or undervalue the last statement. Tory satisfaction on the eve of the general election is something that we should all note; if only the hon. Gentleman's colleagues would admit to the same.
 Obviously, I sought to amend the clause, but I have failed to do so. However, I may return to the matter with my hon. Friends, and I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Buckingham and his hon. Friends. It is clearly better to have this clause, which provides for the opportunity for approvals to be granted, than not to have the clause at all. A half loaf is better than no bread, which is why I shall not oppose the clause's standing part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Right to use approved status

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: I understand the reason for, and I certainly do not object to, the purpose of clause 16. However, I seek an assurance from the Minister in relation to subsection (1). I understand that the intention is to prevent an individual from misrepresenting his or her entitlements, by which I mean the services that he or she has been approved to provide. Can the Minister explain the basis on which that will be achieved? Can he confirm that subsection (1) will not lead to undue interference in, or a detailed determination of, the way in which an approved individual chooses to advertise his or her services?

Simon Hughes: For the hon. Gentleman to go from satisfaction to dissatisfaction so quickly is a matter for severe concern.

Charles Clarke: That is modern Conservatism.

Simon Hughes: Yes.

Keith Simpson: At least the hon. Gentleman has an opinion.

Simon Hughes: He is never consistent, from one minute to the next.
 Turning to subsection (3)(b), what is the current maximum fine and in what way might it be varied? Clearly, the power to impose a significant fine must exist. I understand how the maximum fine for a summary conviction is fixed, but there seems to be no similar mechanism in respect of conviction on indictment.

Charles Clarke: On the second point, the fine is unlimited and at the discretion of the court. On the first point, the hon. Member for Buckingham correctly identified the reason for the provision. The aim is to establish a set of criteria for the quality mark, including standards relating to technical and other requirements, the question of whether an applicant is a fit and proper person, and so on. The voluntary quality mark would last for three years. In finalising the criteria, the normal consultations will of course take place. It is a relatively universal charter mark, and is not designed to be intrusive in terms of marketing a particular company. However, it is intended to enable an individual who uses a company to know whether it is approved.

John Bercow: I understand what the Minister is saying, and it is genuinely not my intention to nitpick. However, is he arguing for universality, or that the provision is generally provided for in a number of different sectors? As an intelligent fellow, he will recognise that his phrase ``relatively universal'' is a contradiction in terms.

Charles Clarke: I was rather hoping that you were a philosopher rather than a classicist, Mr. Winterton, so that you could give a discourse on the precise meaning of the phrase ``relatively universal''. I was trying to say that everyone who is approved will receive a kite mark or clear mark of approval. Of course, that will not extend to those who are not approved. The provision does not deal with establishing different categories within the same mark for different parts of the industry, but the matter could—and certainly would—be decided by the SIA.
 The purpose of the provision is to make as clear as possible to the consumer of a service that a contractor is approved for the type of business that we are describing, but in a manner that will not stand in the way of a company's making its own presentation of its services. With respect, that is a relatively bog-standard—to use a phrase that is currently in vogue—approach to such matters. Many organisations adopt it: it is simply a question of empowering the SIA to do so.

Simon Hughes: The Minister's colleagues mischievously muttered that perhaps the answer is to put the mark on the forehead—an idea to which the Minister was attracted earlier in our debate—or to put a luminous stamp on the back of the hand. Those of us who frequent what are no longer called pop concerts are sometimes required to comply with such requirements. On the relevance of classicism, it is clear that some people need a bit more of it. When answering a question about his new house, an actor said that it was very nice and had 58 rooms, including seven bedrooms and three ``bathra''. That struck me as somewhat pretentious.
 I welcome the Minister's answer in respect of fines, but will he point out to the Government that it would be consistent and good if, on indictment, fine levels were to remain unlimited. That has been a matter of controversy before. For example, people often feel that there should be more significant penalties for breaches of Health and Safety Executive licensing regulations, which involve limited fines, especially if there has been a corporate infraction by a company that then pays relatively nothing for a clear breach of building regulations or the like. 
 I welcome the fact that the higher courts should be able to impose a fine that means something to the person or company that it is fining. I should be grateful if the Minister would pass on that concept to the appropriate authorities and perhaps contemplate the possibility that we could remove at a stroke the barrier to upper levels of fines across the Crown courts and higher courts.

Charles Clarke: I shall pass on those remarks to my colleagues.
 Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Imposition of requirements for approval

Bruce George: I shall not move Amendment No. 5.
 During a number of votes on amendments, Committee Members might have heard my strangulated cries—the small sounds of rebellion. When Fred Mulley, a former Secretary of State for Defence, was asked in 1979 whether he was in favour of nuclear weapons, he said that he was intellectually opposed but institutionally in favour. To reverse that process, I am intellectually supportive of, but institutionally opposed to, many of the amendments that have been discussed this morning. The arguments given by my hon. Friend the Minister are not strong. However, there is no point in pursuing the amendment, because his views are set, at least until the SIA comes up with a better proposal. I find the idea that a company is not an entity unacceptable. Under the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001, the company itself must be licensed in addition to the individuals concerned. There are many examples of companies being so regulated. The idea that they can be excluded from that, and that a good company should get a kite mark of approval for being good, is laughable. I hope that my view—which is, I suspect, that of many others—will be acceptable in future. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not seek the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment, as he chose not to move it. Those were his opening words.
Mr. Bercow rose—

Nicholas Winterton: Is this a point of order, Mr. Bercow, or do you wish to speak in the clause 17 stand part debate?

John Bercow: I should be much obliged if I could do so.

Nicholas Winterton: You can indeed.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: Your natural tolerance invariably gets the better of you, Mr. Winterton, whatever the intention with which you began our proceedings.
 I want to refer to subsection (1) of the clause. I shall be characteristically moderate, restrained and understated in my criticism.

Peter Lilley: Shame.

John Bercow: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's sedentary encouragement.
 First, suffice to say that the subsection is mildly circumlocutory. In 43 words, it appears to say that the Secretary of State will be able to prohibit categories of individuals from the provision of private security industry services unless they have been approved under clause 15. Can the Minister explain the need for a cut-across between clauses 15 and 17? 
 Secondly, as the Minister would expect me to do as surely as the passage of the seasons, I make my habitual inquiry as to whether the regulations referred to in subsection (1) will be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure.

Simon Hughes: On Second Reading and earlier in this Committee, I asked the right hon. Member for Walsall, South what his preconditions are for agreeing to the Bill. Given that it has not yet been significantly amended on the crucial issues, and that the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is intellectually persuaded by the need to amend it, I assume that if we reach Report stage today—

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who has legal qualifications, that the matter he is raising does not relate to clause 17. He tried hard, but I shall not permit him to proceed.

Charles Clarke: To be frank, the questions from the hon. Member for Buckingham were so penetrating that I would have welcomed the opportunity not to answer them—you standing between me and him is something that I could have lived with, Mr. Winterton.
 In answer to the first question from the hon. Gentleman, negative resolution procedure will be used in this case. On the relationship between clauses 15 and 17, I am somewhat confused by his question. Clause 15 deals with the arrangements for the grant of approvals and clause 17 empowers the Secretary of State to establish regulations that extend across the legislation, which is why clause 17 relates to clause 15. I may have misunderstood his point, in which case I shall try to answer it more clearly. The purpose of the juxtaposition of those two clauses is to ensure that there is a relationship between the Secretary of State deciding whether or not to lay down regulations and the operation that exists under clause 15.

John Bercow: The Minister's explanation is entirely satisfactory on this occasion. However, in view of his remarks, it is arguable that the contents of clause 17 could have been contained within clause 15, which may explain my quizzical tone.

Charles Clarke: One day I hope to achieve the esteemed office of parliamentary counsel, at which point I shall engage in those kinds of discussions.
 Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Powers of entry and inspection

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bruce George: I should like some advice. While the Committee has so far lost 22-0 in terms of amendments proposed and accepted, the House of Lords did fractionally better. One of the few amendments that it secured was the nonsense in clause 19(3) that inspections can be undertaken only at a ``reasonable hour''. Bearing in mind that we are discussing some of the biggest rogues in the kingdom, if we want to bust them by inspecting their premises to see whether they are doing anything illegal and whether they are undertaking the task that they said that they would, the idea that only a visit at a reasonable hour will be permitted is absolute nonsense. I cannot see how, out of all the amendments that were submitted by their noble lordships, that piece of stupidity managed to slip through the system.
 My next point—although I doubt whether I shall be able to make it—is that there will be a multitude of inspectorates. When the Minister chooses an inspectorate, I ask him to be careful to ensure that it is genuinely independent. I hope that I have his assurance on that matter 
 I cannot understand the idea in the White Paper that there will be only 10 inspectors—one chief and nine ordinary inspectors. That would be enough for my constituency only. The Gaming Board has 35 inspectors who monitor the 5,000 staff who work in 118 casinos and bingo houses. If we are to have a proper inspectorate monitoring the industry, 10 inspectors is clearly a fraction of what is needed. I hope that I shall receive assurances later this afternoon that it will not be a joke inspectorate, which is what 10 inspectors would make it.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. If the right hon. Member for Walsall, South wants to continue his speech at 4.30 pm, I shall certainly call him.
 It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.